Yeah that was a very bittersweet feeling. I will miss sitting down on Sunday night to watch this. I loved the NBA in the 1990s. It was my first real experience in professional sports. I was 9 when I began watching Michael Jordan, because my folks got cable for the first time and I could get access to WGN. Even during the 2 years he was retired, I was glued to the NBA still. This makes me want to go back and watch the other 30 for 30's like "Winning Time" and "Bad Boys" again.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
Yeah that was a very bittersweet feeling. I will miss sitting down on Sunday night to watch this. I loved the NBA in the 1990s. It was my first real experience in professional sports. I was 9 when I began watching Michael Jordan, because my folks got cable for the first time and I could get access to WGN. Even during the 2 years he was retired, I was glued to the NBA still. This makes me want to go back and watch the other 30 for 30's like "Winning Time" and "Bad Boys" again.
There was a pretty good 30 for 30 on the Shaq/Penny Magic as well.
Yeah that was a very bittersweet feeling. I will miss sitting down on Sunday night to watch this. I loved the NBA in the 1990s. It was my first real experience in professional sports. I was 9 when I began watching Michael Jordan, because my folks got cable for the first time and I could get access to WGN. Even during the 2 years he was retired, I was glued to the NBA still. This makes me want to go back and watch the other 30 for 30's like "Winning Time" and "Bad Boys" again.
There was a pretty good 30 for 30 on the Shaq/Penny Magic as well.
Oh yeah I forgot! "This Magic Moment." I'll be watching a bunch of YouTube replays of some 90s NBA as well to try to fill the void.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
MJ would have learned how to increase his 3 point percentage 3-4% and dominate in today’s game. He had to bulk up for the Pistons but still was as quick as anyone. I have no doubt he could dominate just like Lebron did.
Agreed.
The comparisons between these two are always interesting. Neither have/had relied on their 3-point shot. LeBron has the edge in passing, rebounding and just being a freight train when he's going to the hoop. Jordan had a better mid-range game, overall more polished jump shot (which would have given him a good chance at making more 3's in today's NBA) and was a fiercer competitor. Both exceptional defenders against multiple positions on the court and in today's NBA, Jordan could probably hold his own against most 5's if needing to defend that position. I'd even wonder if Jordan would be considered a 2 in today's NBA. He may be more of a 3 (Wing) or even a stretch 4. It would have been incredible to see these two play in the same era.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
Somehow this play didn't make into the documentary at any point. One of my Pippen nit-picks from this otherwise perfect documentary. It's from Michael's "double-nickel" game.
Of course you did. They'll have you believe that the final score of that game was Bulls 57 (Michael's 55, Wennington's 2), Knicks 55.
Might as well mention my other Pippen nit-picks...
-I would have liked if they mentioned that Pippen was the leading scorer in the clinching game 5 in 1991 against the Lakers. Not that I think he deserves a medal for outscoring MJ by two points in a huge game. But it would have been nice if they just dubbed the announcer mentioning it (it would be like 2 seconds of screen time). But they focused on Paxon because apparently Michael learned to pass that game. And Paxon was great in that 4th quarter, but so wasn't Pippen. Throw him a bone. It would be nice redemption narrative following the migraine the year before. Yeah, they showed him showing some toughness by brushing off that super cheap shot from Rodman, but still.
-This doc continues the false narrative of the 1992 Finals, which is Michael Jordan made 6 threes in the first half of game 1, and that's all ya need to know. Well actually, the Bulls were down by 15 late in the third quarter of game 6, when MJ went to the bench. The Pippen-led squad came all the way back to take the lead, and then MJ came back in and they won going away. Now, when I say "Pippen-led squad," I don't mean he scored every basket like MJ. But he scored here, made an assist there, took a charge from Clyde, etc. Did all the Pippen-stuff that he does to help them take the lead.
-When they highlighted the 1994 season, it was shocking that they didn't show a clip of him winning all-star MVP. I know, it's just an all-star game. But everyone in that all-star game was jockeying for position with MJ gone, and Pip rose to the top that day. I'm not saying they should stop the doc and focus on it, but just give me a quick clip.
Somewhere, there's someone that wasn't around in the 90's (or were around but didn't pay close attention). I'm afraid that person might walk away from this doc thinking Horace Grant, Steve Kerr, and John Paxon were better basketball players than Pippen. At least they focused on him toughing it out in 1998 with the back injury.
Small Pippen fanboy nitpicks aside, this is the greatest sports documentary ever. It's not just about Michael and the Bulls either. It's a history of basketball from the moment Michael hits that game-winner in college, to the moment he hits the game-winner in 1998. With the exception of Hakeem (due to the timeframe he won his titles), everybody who's anybody in 90's basketball appeared in this, either in the highlights, as talking heads, or both.
Of course you did. They'll have you believe that the final score of that game was Bulls 57 (Michael's 55, Wennington's 2), Knicks 55.
Might as well mention my other Pippen nit-picks...
-I would have liked if they mentioned that Pippen was the leading scorer in the clinching game 5 in 1991 against the Lakers. Not that I think he deserves a medal for outscoring MJ by two points in a huge game. But it would have been nice if they just dubbed the announcer mentioning it (it would be like 2 seconds of screen time). But they focused on Paxon because apparently Michael learned to pass that game. And Paxon was great in that 4th quarter, but so wasn't Pippen. Throw him a bone. It would be nice redemption narrative following the migraine the year before. Yeah, they showed him showing some toughness by brushing off that super cheap shot from Rodman, but still.
-This doc continues the false narrative of the 1992 Finals, which is Michael Jordan made 6 threes in the first half of game 1, and that's all ya need to know. Well actually, the Bulls were down by 15 late in the third quarter of game 6, when MJ went to the bench. The Pippen-led squad came all the way back to take the lead, and then MJ came back in and they won going away. Now, when I say "Pippen-led squad," I don't mean he scored every basket like MJ. But he scored here, made an assist there, took a charge from Clyde, etc. Did all the Pippen-stuff that he does to help them take the lead.
-When they highlighted the 1994 season, it was shocking that they didn't show a clip of him winning all-star MVP. I know, it's just an all-star game. But everyone in that all-star game was jockeying for position with MJ gone, and Pip rose to the top that day. I'm not saying they should stop the doc and focus on it, but just give me a quick clip.
Somewhere, there's someone that wasn't around in the 90's (or were around but didn't pay close attention). I'm afraid that person might walk away from this doc thinking Horace Grant, Steve Kerr, and John Paxon were better basketball players than Pippen. At least they focused on him toughing it out in 1998 with the back injury.
Small Pippen fanboy nitpicks aside, this is the greatest sports documentary ever. It's not just about Michael and the Bulls either. It's a history of basketball from the moment Michael hits that game-winner in college, to the moment he hits the game-winner in 1998. With the exception of Hakeem (due to the timeframe he won his titles), everybody who's anybody in 90's basketball appeared in this, either in the highlights, as talking heads, or both.
I've heard a few sports shows mention that Pippen doesn't look good after this documentary and They did mention that he was a top 50 player of all time.
I seriously hope that people understand just how good Pippen was. I don't remember them showing Pippen chase down anyone and blocking them like he would always do. Did they show any of that?
They should have showed Kukoc’s third quarter in game 7 against the Pacers. I re-watched that game last week and he kept them in the game and allowed MJ to rest. B.S. that wasn’t included. Would have taken only a minute.
They should have showed Kukoc’s third quarter in game 7 against the Pacers. I re-watched that game last week and he kept them in the game and allowed MJ to rest. B.S. that wasn’t included. Would have taken only a minute.
I was thinking the same thing. They don't win that game without Kukoc's effort.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
Of course you did. They'll have you believe that the final score of that game was Bulls 57 (Michael's 55, Wennington's 2), Knicks 55.
Might as well mention my other Pippen nit-picks...
-I would have liked if they mentioned that Pippen was the leading scorer in the clinching game 5 in 1991 against the Lakers. Not that I think he deserves a medal for outscoring MJ by two points in a huge game. But it would have been nice if they just dubbed the announcer mentioning it (it would be like 2 seconds of screen time). But they focused on Paxon because apparently Michael learned to pass that game. And Paxon was great in that 4th quarter, but so wasn't Pippen. Throw him a bone. It would be nice redemption narrative following the migraine the year before. Yeah, they showed him showing some toughness by brushing off that super cheap shot from Rodman, but still.
-This doc continues the false narrative of the 1992 Finals, which is Michael Jordan made 6 threes in the first half of game 1, and that's all ya need to know. Well actually, the Bulls were down by 15 late in the third quarter of game 6, when MJ went to the bench. The Pippen-led squad came all the way back to take the lead, and then MJ came back in and they won going away. Now, when I say "Pippen-led squad," I don't mean he scored every basket like MJ. But he scored here, made an assist there, took a charge from Clyde, etc. Did all the Pippen-stuff that he does to help them take the lead.
-When they highlighted the 1994 season, it was shocking that they didn't show a clip of him winning all-star MVP. I know, it's just an all-star game. But everyone in that all-star game was jockeying for position with MJ gone, and Pip rose to the top that day. I'm not saying they should stop the doc and focus on it, but just give me a quick clip.
Somewhere, there's someone that wasn't around in the 90's (or were around but didn't pay close attention). I'm afraid that person might walk away from this doc thinking Horace Grant, Steve Kerr, and John Paxon were better basketball players than Pippen. At least they focused on him toughing it out in 1998 with the back injury.
Small Pippen fanboy nitpicks aside, this is the greatest sports documentary ever. It's not just about Michael and the Bulls either. It's a history of basketball from the moment Michael hits that game-winner in college, to the moment he hits the game-winner in 1998. With the exception of Hakeem (due to the timeframe he won his titles), everybody who's anybody in 90's basketball appeared in this, either in the highlights, as talking heads, or both.
I've heard a few sports shows mention that Pippen doesn't look good after this documentary and They did mention that he was a top 50 player of all time.
I seriously hope that people understand just how good Pippen was. I don't remember them showing Pippen chase down anyone and blocking them like he would always do. Did they show any of that?
Not that I noticed. I know they're all side-men to Michael, but I was hoping the doc portrayed the team as....
Michael >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Scottie>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everyone else
Instead I felt it was....
Michael>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Scottie and everyone else.
But thankfully there's YouTube. Highest recommendation to this guy's channel. He's also on instagram as Pip33assassin....
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
They should have showed Kukoc’s third quarter in game 7 against the Pacers. I re-watched that game last week and he kept them in the game and allowed MJ to rest. B.S. that wasn’t included. Would have taken only a minute.
Totally agree. He was great in that game. 21 points if I remember correctly. No way they win that game if not for him.
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
Yeah I didn’t like that either. I never like when someone from the losing team says they were better than the team they lost to. But from Reggie’s perspective, the Bulls had to seem ripe for the picking...between fatigue from the Bulls’ three-straight title runs, Pippen’s back, and Rodman being on the cusp of being completely washed. But they had MJ, which renders most other weaknesses moot.
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
Yeah I didn’t like that either. I never like when someone from the losing team says they were better than the team they lost to. But from Reggie’s perspective, the Bulls had to seem ripe for the picking...between fatigue from the Bulls’ three-straight title runs, Pippen’s back, and Rodman being on the cusp of being completely washed. But they had MJ, which renders most other weaknesses moot.
That pacers team was stacked though. I remember them always playing the Knicks tough and they whooped them 4-1 that year.
That was a great Pacers team and with the talent they had they very well should have beat the Bulls.
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
Yeah I didn’t like that either. I never like when someone from the losing team says they were better than the team they lost to. But from Reggie’s perspective, the Bulls had to seem ripe for the picking...between fatigue from the Bulls’ three-straight title runs, Pippen’s back, and Rodman being on the cusp of being completely washed. But they had MJ, which renders most other weaknesses moot.
That pacers team was stacked though. I remember them always playing the Knicks tough and they whooped them 4-1 that year.
That was a great Pacers team and with the talent they had they very well should have beat the Bulls.
Oh they were definitely good. Made the finals two years later.
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
Yeah I didn’t like that either. I never like when someone from the losing team says they were better than the team they lost to. But from Reggie’s perspective, the Bulls had to seem ripe for the picking...between fatigue from the Bulls’ three-straight title runs, Pippen’s back, and Rodman being on the cusp of being completely washed. But they had MJ, which renders most other weaknesses moot.
That pacers team was stacked though. I remember them always playing the Knicks tough and they whooped them 4-1 that year.
That was a great Pacers team and with the talent they had they very well should have beat the Bulls.
That was pretty much the same team they had rolled out the 3 years prior, except now a deeper bench and Larry Bird as the HC. I would agree Indiana was the deeper team, but there's no one on the Pacers I would take before Jordan or Pippen. Rodman was still rebounding and defending at a high level. Kukoc always gets overlooked, but was a player ahead of his time. If Toni had played in today's NBA, he would be the perfect stretch 4. Chris Mullin was past his prime. Reggie was a tremendous shooter, but I would disagree with the earlier comment comparing him to Curry. He's nowhere near the ball handler Curry is. Both the Pacers and Jazz caught breaks in those playoffs (Reggie's no-call push off and Pippen's back against Utah). The Bulls could have and should have won both series within 5 games.
Post edited by Glorified KC on
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
Yeah I didn’t like that either. I never like when someone from the losing team says they were better than the team they lost to. But from Reggie’s perspective, the Bulls had to seem ripe for the picking...between fatigue from the Bulls’ three-straight title runs, Pippen’s back, and Rodman being on the cusp of being completely washed. But they had MJ, which renders most other weaknesses moot.
That pacers team was stacked though. I remember them always playing the Knicks tough and they whooped them 4-1 that year.
That was a great Pacers team and with the talent they had they very well should have beat the Bulls.
That was pretty much the same team they had rolled out the 3 years prior, except now a deeper bench and Larry Bird as the HC. I would agree Indiana was the deeper team, but there's no one on the Pacers I would take before Jordan or Pippen. Rodman was still rebounding and defending at a high level. Kukoc always gets overlooked, but was a player ahead of his time. If Toni had played in today's NBA, he would be the perfect stretch 4. Chris Mullin was past his prime. Reggie was a tremendous shooter, but I would disagree with the earlier comment comparing him to Curry. He's nowhere near the ball handler Curry is. Both the Pacers and Jazz caught breaks in those playoffs (Reggie's no-call push off and Pippen's back against Utah). The Bulls could have and should have won both series within 5 games.
The reason I compare him to Curry is the movement he would do in a game. He was always moving, running, using a pick to create space. All the things that Curry does now Reggie was doing 20 years ago.
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
Yeah I didn’t like that either. I never like when someone from the losing team says they were better than the team they lost to. But from Reggie’s perspective, the Bulls had to seem ripe for the picking...between fatigue from the Bulls’ three-straight title runs, Pippen’s back, and Rodman being on the cusp of being completely washed. But they had MJ, which renders most other weaknesses moot.
That pacers team was stacked though. I remember them always playing the Knicks tough and they whooped them 4-1 that year.
That was a great Pacers team and with the talent they had they very well should have beat the Bulls.
That was pretty much the same team they had rolled out the 3 years prior, except now a deeper bench and Larry Bird as the HC. I would agree Indiana was the deeper team, but there's no one on the Pacers I would take before Jordan or Pippen. Rodman was still rebounding and defending at a high level. Kukoc always gets overlooked, but was a player ahead of his time. If Toni had played in today's NBA, he would be the perfect stretch 4. Chris Mullin was past his prime. Reggie was a tremendous shooter, but I would disagree with the earlier comment comparing him to Curry. He's nowhere near the ball handler Curry is. Both the Pacers and Jazz caught breaks in those playoffs (Reggie's no-call push off and Pippen's back against Utah). The Bulls could have and should have won both series within 5 games.
The reason I compare him to Curry is the movement he would do in a game. He was always moving, running, using a pick to create space. All the things that Curry does now Reggie was doing 20 years ago.
I always considered Reggie to be more of a catch-and-shoot type of shooter, where Steph can stop-and-pop as well as anyone the game has ever seen. I would prefer Reggie taking the last shot over Steph, if I had a choice. Few had more ice in their veins than Miller.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
Yeah I didn’t like that either. I never like when someone from the losing team says they were better than the team they lost to. But from Reggie’s perspective, the Bulls had to seem ripe for the picking...between fatigue from the Bulls’ three-straight title runs, Pippen’s back, and Rodman being on the cusp of being completely washed. But they had MJ, which renders most other weaknesses moot.
That pacers team was stacked though. I remember them always playing the Knicks tough and they whooped them 4-1 that year.
That was a great Pacers team and with the talent they had they very well should have beat the Bulls.
That was pretty much the same team they had rolled out the 3 years prior, except now a deeper bench and Larry Bird as the HC. I would agree Indiana was the deeper team, but there's no one on the Pacers I would take before Jordan or Pippen. Rodman was still rebounding and defending at a high level. Kukoc always gets overlooked, but was a player ahead of his time. If Toni had played in today's NBA, he would be the perfect stretch 4. Chris Mullin was past his prime. Reggie was a tremendous shooter, but I would disagree with the earlier comment comparing him to Curry. He's nowhere near the ball handler Curry is. Both the Pacers and Jazz caught breaks in those playoffs (Reggie's no-call push off and Pippen's back against Utah). The Bulls could have and should have won both series within 5 games.
The reason I compare him to Curry is the movement he would do in a game. He was always moving, running, using a pick to create space. All the things that Curry does now Reggie was doing 20 years ago.
But Curry's way better at creating his own shot. They always had to run Reggie around picks. Sometimes many picks where he'd start on one wing, runs off of double Davis-brother picks underneath, and pop open in the opposite corner or wing. Bill Simmons laid it out in his book how this was sort of to the Pacers' detriment. Since Reggie didn't really take guys off the dribble, the whole offense had to be catered around finding ways to get him the ball in space.
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
Yeah I didn’t like that either. I never like when someone from the losing team says they were better than the team they lost to. But from Reggie’s perspective, the Bulls had to seem ripe for the picking...between fatigue from the Bulls’ three-straight title runs, Pippen’s back, and Rodman being on the cusp of being completely washed. But they had MJ, which renders most other weaknesses moot.
That pacers team was stacked though. I remember them always playing the Knicks tough and they whooped them 4-1 that year.
That was a great Pacers team and with the talent they had they very well should have beat the Bulls.
That was pretty much the same team they had rolled out the 3 years prior, except now a deeper bench and Larry Bird as the HC. I would agree Indiana was the deeper team, but there's no one on the Pacers I would take before Jordan or Pippen. Rodman was still rebounding and defending at a high level. Kukoc always gets overlooked, but was a player ahead of his time. If Toni had played in today's NBA, he would be the perfect stretch 4. Chris Mullin was past his prime. Reggie was a tremendous shooter, but I would disagree with the earlier comment comparing him to Curry. He's nowhere near the ball handler Curry is. Both the Pacers and Jazz caught breaks in those playoffs (Reggie's no-call push off and Pippen's back against Utah). The Bulls could have and should have won both series within 5 games.
The reason I compare him to Curry is the movement he would do in a game. He was always moving, running, using a pick to create space. All the things that Curry does now Reggie was doing 20 years ago.
I always considered Reggie to be more of a catch-and-shoot type of shooter, where Steph can stop-and-pop as well as anyone the game has ever seen. I would prefer Reggie taking the last shot over Steph, if I had a choice. Few had more ice in their veins than Miller.
Reggie could stop and shoot in transition. Case in point, watch him score the 8 points in 4 seconds against the Knicks. I'll never forget that game as long as I live.
The comment Miller made about the 1997-1998 Pacers being the better team really had me thinking too. Chicago won 62 games and that was without Scottie for the first 2 months of the season. I'd have to think more about this, but my initial impulse is to disagree with Miller. If not for the game 4 winning shot (which should not have happened, he clearly pushed off of Jordan), that series never sees a game 7.
Yeah I didn’t like that either. I never like when someone from the losing team says they were better than the team they lost to. But from Reggie’s perspective, the Bulls had to seem ripe for the picking...between fatigue from the Bulls’ three-straight title runs, Pippen’s back, and Rodman being on the cusp of being completely washed. But they had MJ, which renders most other weaknesses moot.
That pacers team was stacked though. I remember them always playing the Knicks tough and they whooped them 4-1 that year.
That was a great Pacers team and with the talent they had they very well should have beat the Bulls.
That was pretty much the same team they had rolled out the 3 years prior, except now a deeper bench and Larry Bird as the HC. I would agree Indiana was the deeper team, but there's no one on the Pacers I would take before Jordan or Pippen. Rodman was still rebounding and defending at a high level. Kukoc always gets overlooked, but was a player ahead of his time. If Toni had played in today's NBA, he would be the perfect stretch 4. Chris Mullin was past his prime. Reggie was a tremendous shooter, but I would disagree with the earlier comment comparing him to Curry. He's nowhere near the ball handler Curry is. Both the Pacers and Jazz caught breaks in those playoffs (Reggie's no-call push off and Pippen's back against Utah). The Bulls could have and should have won both series within 5 games.
The reason I compare him to Curry is the movement he would do in a game. He was always moving, running, using a pick to create space. All the things that Curry does now Reggie was doing 20 years ago.
But Curry's way better at creating his own shot. They always had to run Reggie around picks. Sometimes many picks where he'd start on one wing, runs off of double Davis-brother picks underneath, and pop open in the opposite corner or wing. Bill Simmons laid it out in his book how this was sort of to the Pacers' detriment. Since Reggie didn't really take guys off the dribble, the whole offense had to be catered around finding ways to get him the ball in space.
Or he needed Mark Jackson to drive and kick out to him. Don't get me wrong, Reggie was unique in his time given the league was so inside-out at that time. I think you can make comparisons to Reggie (Ray Allen, Allan Houston, Peja Stojakovic) where it's more difficult with Steph.
I wish I was a sacrifice, but somehow still lived on.
Comments
8/28/98- Camden, NJ
10/31/09- Philly
5/21/10- NYC
9/2/12- Philly, PA
7/19/13- Wrigley
10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
10/21/13- Philly, PA
10/22/13- Philly, PA
10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly
Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly
I really want a part 2 now. I am sure they have tons of footage left.
https://youtu.be/6FNQMYnD6PY
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
We used to laugh at the Beat Your Wife Potvin chants but this one was a low blow.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Might as well mention my other Pippen nit-picks...
-I would have liked if they mentioned that Pippen was the leading scorer in the clinching game 5 in 1991 against the Lakers. Not that I think he deserves a medal for outscoring MJ by two points in a huge game. But it would have been nice if they just dubbed the announcer mentioning it (it would be like 2 seconds of screen time). But they focused on Paxon because apparently Michael learned to pass that game. And Paxon was great in that 4th quarter, but so wasn't Pippen. Throw him a bone. It would be nice redemption narrative following the migraine the year before. Yeah, they showed him showing some toughness by brushing off that super cheap shot from Rodman, but still.
-This doc continues the false narrative of the 1992 Finals, which is Michael Jordan made 6 threes in the first half of game 1, and that's all ya need to know. Well actually, the Bulls were down by 15 late in the third quarter of game 6, when MJ went to the bench. The Pippen-led squad came all the way back to take the lead, and then MJ came back in and they won going away. Now, when I say "Pippen-led squad," I don't mean he scored every basket like MJ. But he scored here, made an assist there, took a charge from Clyde, etc. Did all the Pippen-stuff that he does to help them take the lead.
-When they highlighted the 1994 season, it was shocking that they didn't show a clip of him winning all-star MVP. I know, it's just an all-star game. But everyone in that all-star game was jockeying for position with MJ gone, and Pip rose to the top that day. I'm not saying they should stop the doc and focus on it, but just give me a quick clip.
Somewhere, there's someone that wasn't around in the 90's (or were around but didn't pay close attention). I'm afraid that person might walk away from this doc thinking Horace Grant, Steve Kerr, and John Paxon were better basketball players than Pippen. At least they focused on him toughing it out in 1998 with the back injury.
Small Pippen fanboy nitpicks aside, this is the greatest sports documentary ever. It's not just about Michael and the Bulls either. It's a history of basketball from the moment Michael hits that game-winner in college, to the moment he hits the game-winner in 1998. With the exception of Hakeem (due to the timeframe he won his titles), everybody who's anybody in 90's basketball appeared in this, either in the highlights, as talking heads, or both.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
oh ok
8/28/98- Camden, NJ
10/31/09- Philly
5/21/10- NYC
9/2/12- Philly, PA
7/19/13- Wrigley
10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
10/21/13- Philly, PA
10/22/13- Philly, PA
10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly
Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly
I seriously hope that people understand just how good Pippen was. I don't remember them showing Pippen chase down anyone and blocking them like he would always do. Did they show any of that?
Michael >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Scottie>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everyone else
Instead I felt it was....
Michael>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Scottie and everyone else.
But thankfully there's YouTube. Highest recommendation to this guy's channel. He's also on instagram as Pip33assassin....
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
That was a great Pacers team and with the talent they had they very well should have beat the Bulls.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com